I see nothing wrong with discussion. I also like to explore the possibilities of modifying the gameplay, even if what we discuss will never happen. But what we always have to remember in these discussions is that we're talking about games, and gameplay. So we pretty much need to throw reality out the window when gameplay balance, in order to be fun and fair, is concerned.

People will always come in these types of threads and paste link after link of real life material to support their arguments, but they're all essentially irrelevant since we're discussing a game, not reality.

Yes, very practicalI'm showing you material from rather realiable sources. You don't want to read it it's your perrogative.On a side note, they mention ceremonial swords in the article that, if memory serves me right are aproximate to the zweihander's weight in the game. That said there's no reason the technique involved has to be clumsy.As for your post, that had nothing to do with anything. The game show improper sword technique and gives off a felling of big/great swords being akin to hammers. And that's incorrect. Simple. But like I said not a big deal. It's for the show and I can see why they did it.

BLA1NE wrote: I see nothing wrong with discussion. I also like to explore the possibilities of modifying the gameplay, even if what we discuss will never happen. But what we always have to remember in these discussions is that we're talking about games, and gameplay. So we pretty much need to throw reality out the window when gameplay balance, in order to be fun and fair, is concerned.

People will always come in these types of threads and paste link after link of real life material to support their arguments, but they're all essentially irrelevant since we're discussing a game, not reality.

True, but it's in that mixing that I see the challenge. There's always concessions to be made however...

As for the material posted that was simpy to support my argument, which by the way was not the main point of the thread.I was more interested in the forum users opinion on the "grab" attacks (backstab and riposte).In the future I'll keep things in separate threads.

You do realize that actual Zweihander's were originally only 5 feet long right?

You do realize that larger versions being used for actual warfare is heavily disputed by historical scholars & at the end of the day it is simply considered legend right?

You do realize that the way these swords were described to be used for where to disrupt pikemen formation & not for actual sword on sword combat right? That these guys were supposedly frontline expendable fodder who didn't fight in a way that can be considered elegant or with great skill when compared to a user of a normal sized sword right?

You do realize that actual historians believe these pieces to mainly be for show hung up on walls, used for ceremony, & given to guards (not army men) as an intimidation tactic (large sword equal bad ***) right?

You do realize that firearms were being implemented into the military making such weapons less relevant during this same time right?

Last edited by Oo1Zer0 on Fri Apr 06, 2012 4:16 pm; edited 2 times in total

Actually the guys yielding said swords would be better paid than the rest since it was harder to handle them and they had to have great skill to do it. I'm sure there are cases were they would be brutes without skill but that doesn't make it the rule.Further down that arma that arma article there's a guy testing out a 7.5 pounds sword (don't recall the size) and saying it was rather easy to handle. Deceptive for its size and weight.

And it's not only the bigger swords the game depicts wrongly. Tell me: do you think the way the claymore is used in the game is close to the actual way it's used?Swords are not hammers or axes, it's what I said and am saying still.The myth that big swords are unwildy will live forever, when in the end it was one of the most beautifull and perfect arts of its time.

But you know what: you're being way too emotional over this and are starting to be offensive. Weather I'm right or not doesn't merit that, because I've been civil up until now, something you failed to do.I rather speak with someone more level. That way if I had to learn something it would actually be pleaseant.

bla wrote:Actually the guys yielding said swords would be better paid than the rest since it was harder to handle them and they had to have great skill to do it. I'm sure there are cases were they would be brutes without skill but that doesn't make it the rule.Further down that arma that arma article there's a guy testing out a 7.5 pounds sword (don't recall the size) and saying it was rather easy to handle. Deceptive for its size and weight.

They were better payed because they had a higher chance at dieing while acting as a frontline taking the brunt of spear attacks. Don't you even know what fodder is? In military they generally train you how to use the weapon they give you so of course they're going to teach them how to chop a spear head off since that was their job.

bla wrote:And it's not only the bigger swords the game depicts wrongly. Tell me: do you think the way the claymore is used in the game is close to the actual way it's used?

Given the amount of force & momentum put into the swings it's closer yes. You gotta remember that solders didn't put everything into a swing. It simply didn't require that much strength to kill your opponent while doing so & missing would cause you to stagger. In dark souls you're cutting through giant monsters so added force is a required. But we're talking about the Zwei not Claymore.

bla wrote:Swords are not hammers or axes, it's what I said and am saying still.

Actually in some ways the Zwei are meant to be used like a hammer, axe, or spear at times.

bla wrote:The myth that big swords are unwildy will live forever, when in the end it was one of the most beautifull and perfect arts of its time.

bla wrote:But you know what: you're being way too emotional over this and are starting to be offensive.

Because you won't get the point that a sword towering 7 feet or higher (like in dark souls) is in no way a practical weapon?

bla wrote:Weather I'm right or not doesn't merit that, because I've been civil up until now, something you failed to do. I rather speak with someone more level. That way if I had to learn something it would actually be pleaseant.

Why because I disagreed with you & spoke the truth? You came in here acting like you know what you're talking about & I corrected you on a mistake. Stop acting like a baby just because you're wrong.

No... This forum's been active since January, you could use the search function to try and find them. And before that, we'd been on the wiki's forum pretty much since last October. So there's been more than a few in that time span. I've probably even started at least one of them!

I could be remembering wrong (ie: remembering what I want to remember ) but I think the general consensus, after all was said and done, was that:

- Weapons that focus solely on critical hits (daggers and such) could keep the grab attack.

- Everything else would no longer do a grab attack, but hits to the back could potentially do increased damage--if they land, of course. Since these weapons no longer have grab attacks, hitting people in the back without them rolling away would appropriately be more difficult.

- I threw around a suggestion that you could only backstab if you weren't locked-on, that way people could no longer abuse the lock-on mechanic to get auto-backstabs when playing online. Don't remember how that was received.

Well... that's not all of it, I'm sure, but that's all I can remember for now in my biased mind.

I think everyone just skipped over that point too because we all simply agree! I wouldn't go as far as making him not-parryable, beause I think that's an important aspect of the fight, but I agree that he's a breeze when you know how to parry him.

What the game director, Miyazaki, wanted to accomplish with Gwyn, was a boss fight that you could beat with any playstyle you'd developed through the game. So you could tank him, take him out from range, parry him, etc. He did say, in all honesty, that he was disappointed with the end result, though. From my experience, it's probably because Gwyn turned out to be a terrible foe for people trying to take him from range, and a pushover for tanks--especially tanks who know how to parry.

So I think it's great that you can parry him. But at the same time I understand that it's by far the easiest way to beat him.

By the way, you can use a greatsword in battle, but I would never suggest it in a duel or small group combat. You are way too slow to properly use it unless your level of skill is a great deal higher than the other person, in which case it is less about your skill but more so their mistakes. The German Zweihander did see combat and could be effective, but had to be used in certain ways such as gripping the cross guard, and revere wielding the sword to hammer armor. I wouldn't personally carry it into battle, but you could. People were killed by them, but they did get replaced by weapons with more practical uses. It can kill, it just isn't as practical.

Oo1Zer0 wrote:Exaggerated larger swords are display pieces made for ceremony & aren't practical for actual combat. The longer the blade the longer it takes your swing to travel from point A to point B which means the longer it takes you to recover to follow up with another attack or block. This is why Greatswords are sometimes held on the dull part of the blade to reduce the length while adding better leverage for more powerful strikes. If holding the sword by it's handle & actually swinging it one handed like in dark souls you could potentially lose power in your swing. You'd actually be better off using a one and a half hand sword over an oversized display piece. If these swords were practical everyone would have been using them.

FYI a two handed sword IS difficult to wield if used improperly & with only one hand like in dark souls. That's why it's called a two handed sword because it's supposed to be used with both hands. I actually own some of these weapons so ummm yeah don't act like I have no idea what I'm talking about please.

PS: Ever heard the phrase the bigger the gun the smaller the penis? It was a sign of higher standing in those time just as some platemail which weren't designed to be practical in combat such as some armor worn during jousting competition. Extra metal was added to look pretty & protect specific areas since they had no intention of getting off the horse.

You have valid points, however...

Assuming that a zweihander actually weighs 18 lbs, and has a corresponding stat requirement of 20 strength (don't know off the top of my head), that means at 20 strength you are strong enough to wield the weapon with some proficiency. But when you are a stat value of say 60, then you should theoretically be able to deal with the weight easier, and therefore more effective with the weapon in combat. Now if you want to discuss balance of weight and so forth, that would be a good topic to take up (but I will argue that dexterity can be used to address that somewhat). But I stand that if there is a big friggin sword that requires that I be very strong to use, I would assume that if I got much stronger beyond that I would be more effective. Though, now that I type this out, I realize it is addressed somewhat with stats on weapons, but not enough. I would think that at the very least someone with twice the strength of another given person would be able to bring down a sword with much more power...

I just want more damage so I can beat Four Kings on my NG+ dag nabit! lol

Oo1Zer0 you were right.I red the article I posted (hadn't read it in a long time) and I was definitly mixing up the specialized role of the zwei with one and a half swords, which are usually the wepons that get bad reputation unnecessarily. Indeed like the article mentions there are effectively no detailed records of that sword's handling.I still think weapons like the claymore and bastard sword feel too weighty (I know I didn't mention this in the first post and was not the discussion) and I still think you were too derisive in your comments even if I was being stubborn. You definilty got me going with that buster sword nonsense, because that's a far cry from the mistake I made. Had I been more cool headed I would properly check my facts beforehand.But again I say you were right (I'm sure you don't need that confirmation anyway).

NedroidPrime, the issue with two-handing heavy weapons be it swords hammers or axes etc. is something I would like to see properly adressed in videogames.While this won't take place in dark souls because it would involve altering animations, a 3rd souls game could be a good candidate.I am aware that this kind of balance would be hard to achieve but I don't think it's impossible.The rise in strenght enabling someone to swing faster would be awesome, and this is a discussion that intrigues me outside videogames and inclusively bleeds into other realms, such as strenght versus speed. But that is probably a discussion for off-topic.

At any rate, giving two handed swings a bit more speed in general (not much) could have been a simple solution when designing dark souls. If I'm not mistaken, both one-handed and two handed have the same speed.

Scythes were converted for infantry use slake. Thing is the blade was usually lifted 90 degrees, to make it a sort of glaive. I believe an entire unit in Poland at one point was made entirely of these weapons.

And it's not just the way they cut and stabbed so well. Psychological warfare, early addition